JUDGMENT :

Prakash Gupta, J.

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-plaintiff (for short, 'the plaintiff') against the order dated 30.10.2019 passed by the Addl. District Judge No. 4, Ajmer (for short, 'the appellate court') in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 21/2018, whereby the appeal filed by the respondent-defendant no. 1 has been allowed; the order dated 20.3.2018 passed by the Civil Judge Ajmer City (East), Ajmer (for short, 'the trial court') has been set-aside and the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC has been dismissed.

2. Facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction. Alongwith the suit, an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC for temporary injunction was filed. The Trial Court vide its order dated 20.3.2018 allowed the said application and granted temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff. Being aggrieved, the respondent-defendant no. 1 filed an appeal before the Appellate Court. The said Court vide its judgment dated 30.10.2019 set aside the order dated 20.3.2018 passed by the trial court and dismissed the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC. Hence, this writ petition.

3. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that original title of the land in question was in the name of Mohan Lal S/o Shri Ram Lal. As per agreement to sell dated 8.10.2012 after receiving the amount of sale consideration to the tune of Rs. 6,96,654/-, the possession of the plot was handed over to the plaintiff by Shri Mohan Lal and since then he is in possession and occupation of the plot in question. Neither Mohan Lal or any of his family members nor the respondent - defendant no. 1 challenged the agreement to sell dated 8.12.2012 at any stage. The defendant no. 1 not submitted any legal document, which could show that he had purchased the land in question from its owner. However, the learned appellate court has failed to consider this aspect of the matter and on this count, the impugned order dated 30.10.2019 passed by the court below is liable to be quashed and set-aside.

4. Heard. Considered.

5. The appellate court while allowing the appeal noticed that the respondent-defendant no. 1 purchased the suit property by way of registered sale deed dated 30.4.2015 from Smt. Usha Mishra and Smt. Usha Mishra purchased the said property from Divaka Mishra and his co-sharers by way of registered sale deed dated 25.10.2012. On the other hand, the agreement to sell dated 8.10.2012 produced by the plaintiff was executed on a stamp paper of Rs. 100/- and that too was unregistered. After purchasing the suit property, respondent-defendant no. 1 applied for patta of the said property in Ajmer Development Authority. Commissioner, Ajmer Development Authority issued a patta in his favour on 13.1.2016.

6. So far as the possession on the suit property is concerned, the appellate court noticed that in reply to the application, the respondent-defendant no. 1 specifically mentioned that after purchase of the suit property, a boundary wall around the suit property was got constructed by him. This fact was not denied by the plaintiff in his reply. In this view of the matter having found the prima facie possession and title of the respondent-defendant no. 1 over the suit property, the appellate court set-aside the order dated 20.3.2018 passed by the trial court and rightly dismissed the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC.

7. I am in agreement with the findings arrived at by the appellate court.

8. This writ petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The power under Article 227 of the Constitution is to be exercised in cases of jurisdictional error, apparent perversity, patent illegality or manifest injustice, which is not the situation here in this case.

9. For the aforesaid reasons, I find no force in this writ petition and the same being bereft of any merit, is liable to be dismissed,